• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reports: Ferguson grand jury has made decision

BmanMcfly said:
Perhaps you are not aware, but it was only something like 2% of the population at a peak that owned slaves.
Click to expand...

Do you have verifiable evidence for this claim?

The numbers I have seen are these - and these come from Yahoo Answers using the 1860 US Census figures and other sources who all seem to agree on the numbers


Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).

Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)

For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.
Click to expand...

This article confirms that information from the census

http://civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm

as does this one

http://www.civil-war.net/census.asp?census=Total



So where does this 2% claim come in?
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
That was haymarket's argument, not hers.
Click to expand...

False. They were discussing the rioters and not the residents of Ferguson in general. She mistook context not only as the residents of Furguson but as all black people. The dropping of context was hers.

It's reasonable to presume the parents of rioters (and rioters) have low IQs.

That you and she would like to twist things is merely a projection of racism.
 
Is anyone really surprised at this decision. It's only a black guy that was killed. It would be a totally different matter if it were NYC and a black cop killed a white Wall Street executive.
 
MildSteel said:
Is anyone really surprised at this decision. It's only a black guy that was killed. It would be a totally different matter if it were NYC and a black cop killed a white Wall Street executive.
Click to expand...

You are right, in the exact same circumstances but a white being killed.. The cop would still get off, there wouldn't be protest or, riots and far fewer would even know of it.
 
buck said:
You are right, in the exact same circumstances but a white being killed.. The cop would still get off, there wouldn't be protest or, riots and far fewer would even know of it.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said, so your "you are right" is flawed.
 
What happened was the fault of the victim for being a thief and a bully, and the fault of the officer for not taking better control of the situation instead of firing randomly which seems clear, having fired 12 shots.

Despite Michael Brown being a thief and a bully he should not have died for this crime. And the officer appears to have been poorly trained, which is not his fault either.

The gun culture and strong-arm tactics among the police has to change, just as some areas in the culture of the Black community must change also. This is about culture, not race, in both of these communities.

Gun Control :: SteynOnline
 
MildSteel said:
That's not what I said, so your "you are right" is flawed.
Click to expand...

You said it would be a totally different matter if it were a white wall street exec... And you are right. I then listed specific reasons why you were right when you said it would be tottally different.
 
Grant said:
What happened was the fault of the victim for being a thief and a bully, and the fault of the officer for not taking better control of the situation instead of firing randomly which seems clear, having fired 12 shots.

Despite Michael Brown being a thief and a bully he should not have died for this crime. And the officer appears to have been poorly trained, which is not his fault either.

The gun culture and strong-arm tactics among the police has to change, just as some areas in the culture of the Black community must change also. This is about culture, not race, in both of these communities.

Gun Control :: SteynOnline
Click to expand...

I agree with what you have said here. The truth is that I really have very little taste with the type of culture that has developed in the black community, and you are exactly right, that must change. That said, there was enough evidence to bring this issue to trial. Whether there was enough evidence to convict, I don't know.
 
buck said:
You said it would be a totally different matter if it were a white wall street exec... And you are right. I then listed specific reasons why you were right when you said it would be tottally different.
Click to expand...

You said in the same circumstances but a white being killed the cop would get off. That's not what I said, which is why your "you are right" is flawed.
 
haymarket said:
1- the American middle class grew from a period of time. Now it is shrinking. The black middle class is part of that.
Click to expand...

So African American middle class is shrinking along with the rest of middle class? Not BECAUSE they are black. But because they are middle class.

2- the condition of African Americans compared to whites has been long and fully documented. I would refer you to either book which pretty much uses much of the same data

AMERICA IN BLACK AND WHITE by Stephan & Abagail Thernstrom
that gives you a liberal slant

THE END OF RACISM by Dinesh D'Souza
which gives you a conservative slant

but both present much the same data documenting beyond any argument or dispute the effects of slavery and Jim Crow on living African Americans today.
Click to expand...

The "effects" that say what? African Americans cannot be middle class? That they are limited by their skin color?

Is that what you believe? That blacks cannot make it to the middle class?
 
Grant said:
What happened was the fault of the victim for being a thief and a bully, and the fault of the officer for not taking better control of the situation instead of firing randomly which seems clear, having fired 12 shots.

Despite Michael Brown being a thief and a bully he should not have died for this crime. And the officer appears to have been poorly trained, which is not his fault either.

The gun culture and strong-arm tactics among the police has to change, just as some areas in the culture of the Black community must change also. This is about culture, not race, in both of these communities.

Gun Control :: SteynOnline
Click to expand...

I agree with much of this post.
 
MildSteel said:
You said in the same circumstances but a white being killed the cop would get off. That's not what I said, which is why your "you are right" is flawed.
Click to expand...

Ah, if your claim was that the cop would then be charged.. Then you are wrong... Sure, the cop would still get off.. But few would even know or care about it. Some hypothetical white executive stealing and pushing around a store clerk, then assaulting a police officer then getting shot where the evidence supports he kept coming at the cop? It would be old news and no one would care.
 
buck said:
Ah, if your claim was that the cop would then be charged.. Then you are wrong... Sure, the cop would still get off.. But few would even know or care about it. Some hypothetical white executive stealing and pushing around a store clerk, then assaulting a police officer then getting shot where the evidence supports he kept coming at the cop? It would be old news and no one would care.
Click to expand...

What I said was that if it were NYC and a black cop killed a white Wall Street executive and there was not indictment, there would be an outrage.
 
stonewall50 said:
So African American middle class is shrinking along with the rest of middle class? Not BECAUSE they are black. But because they are middle class.



The "effects" that say what? African Americans cannot be middle class? That they are limited by their skin color?

Is that what you believe? That blacks cannot make it to the middle class?
Click to expand...

Where do you come up with stuff? :doh:roll::shock:
 
MildSteel said:
What I said was that if it were NYC and a black cop killed a white Wall Street executive and there was not indictment, there would be an outrage.
Click to expand...

Then you aren't even making sense.. Since that wouldn't be an entirely "different matter", that would be the exact same matter. There is "an outrage" when it was a black man being killed in this manner, so how could it be a "different matter" if it's a white guiy being killed and there was still "an outrage". Look at the protests, the riots, much of the media coverage and most of the celebrity tweets.

But no, hard to argue hypotheticals, but in the circumstances you are describing, few would care. There may be a lawsuit by the family, but that would still be just as difficult for them to win as it will be in this case.
 
buck said:
Then you aren't even making sense.. Since that wouldn't be an entirely "different matter", that would be the exact same matter. There is "an outrage" when it was a black man being killed in this manner, so how could it be a "different matter" if it's a white guiy being killed and there was still "an outrage". Look at the protests, the riots, much of the media coverage and most of the celebrity tweets.
Click to expand...

I'm making sense, but perhaps what I have said is not clear to you. Although there would be outrage, many of the people who support the no indictment decision would be outraged if there was no indictment in the scenario I put forward because in their minds, a black life is not as important as the life of a white Wall Street executive. As a result, it is more likely that there would be an indictment, given a similar preponderance of evidence. Face it, many whites will value the life of a white Wall Street executive more than a black guy from the Midwest.
 
MildSteel said:
I'm making sense, but perhaps what I have said is not clear to you. Although there would be outrage, many of the people who support the no indictment decision would be outraged if there was no indictment in the scenario I put forward because in their minds, a black life is not as important as the life of a white Wall Street executive. As a result, it is more likely that there would be an indictment, given a similar preponderance of evidence. Face it, many whites will value the life of a white Wall Street executive more than a black guy from the Midwest.
Click to expand...

As someone that believes this was the right decision, I've already disproven your claim as I (and most) wouldn't take any outrage from the exact same happening with just a twist on the races involved - I and most would still see it as the right conclusion.

I'll never find a perfect match to your scenario, but close enough (unarmed whit man shot by non-white cop) and the cop was cleared:

http://wreg.com/2014/11/25/salt-lake-cop-cleared-in-shooting-of-unarmed-white-man/

No protests, no riots, and I think it was the right call.
 
Last edited:
MildSteel said:
I'm making sense, but perhaps what I have said is not clear to you. Although there would be outrage, many of the people who support the no indictment decision would be outraged if there was no indictment in the scenario I put forward because in their minds, a black life is not as important as the life of a white Wall Street executive. As a result, it is more likely that there would be an indictment, given a similar preponderance of evidence. Face it, many whites will value the life of a white Wall Street executive more than a black guy from the Midwest.
Click to expand...
First off your example of a "white Wall St. Executive" is ridiculous. 1. I doubt that an executive of any color would be strong arm robbing a store for cigarillo's. 2. I doubt that anyone in that position would be assualting a cop and going for his gun. As for a reaction from other "white Wall St. Executive's" it is laughable the assertion that they would go nuts and start birning down NYC.

As far as analogies go. I rate this one a total fail, and believe that only those mired in victimhood would even think such a thing.
 
ecofarm said:
Perceived injustice.

My point is not to determine innocence or guilt, it is to explain that individual instances of perceived racial injustice constitute a threat to blacks collectively, as a result of systemic privilege. Similar instances regarding perceived injustice regarding a white victim do not threaten whites collectively, as there is no systemic privilege adversely affecting whites to be perpetuated.

Given perceived injustice... Regarding blacks, it's a threat. Regarding whites, it's not. That is the reason blacks riot and whites do not regarding instances of perceived injustice.
Click to expand...



So you are saying because of systematic racial injustices, the best thing we can hope for is back people rioting over a thug who just robbed a store and charged a cop and got killed for it?


The real culprit here starts with the media who played up the "white cop black "kid"" angle, fanning the flames, then the feurgeson police for making all the wrong choices in dealing with the protests.

Then you have the breakdown of the african American family, and systematic poverty, to which in suck african american communities there is peer pressure of being smart and trying to be successful as "acting white".

coupled with the dependent class hand out society created by the left you have reactions such as this.


ultimately though the riots, are to be blamed on the rioters/.
 
buck said:
As someone that believes this was the right decision, I've already disproven your claim as I (and most) wouldn't take any outrage from the exact same happening with just a twist on the races involved - I and most would still see it as the right conclusion.
Click to expand...

No you have not disproven anything because the point is that white Americans tend value to the life of a white Wall Street executive more than they value the life of a black guy from the Midwest. And if a black cop shot and killed an unarmed white Wall Street executive and there was no trial, despite eyewitness testimony that the executive posed no threat to the black cop, regardless of whether there were accounts to contradict that, there would be outrage from many whites who support the current grand jury decision.
 
j-mac said:
First off your example of a "white Wall St. Executive" is ridiculous. 1. I doubt that an executive of any color would be strong arm robbing a store for cigarillo's.
Click to expand...

Rich white people have been known to shoplift. It is possible that one could shoplift some Cuban cigars, so it is not a ridiculous example at all.

j-mac said:
2. I doubt that anyone in that position would be assualting a cop and going for his gun.
Click to expand...

You doubt that, but you don't appear to have any doubt whatsoever about the officers claim that he was assaulted, despite the fact that there is evidence that contradicts the officers claim. Why don't you have any such doubt? Because you believe that assaulting a police officer is the type of thing that black males do.

j-mac said:
As for a reaction from other "white Wall St. Executive's" it is laughable the assertion that they would go nuts and start birning down NYC.
Click to expand...

It is laughable to assert that I said that other white Wall Street executives would start burning down NYC. What I did say is there would be outrage, from many of the whites that now support this indictment.

j-mac said:
As far as analogies go. I rate this one a total fail, and believe that only those mired in victimhood would even think such a thing.
Click to expand...

It is not an analogy, it is a hypothetical scenario that demonstrates that whites place a different value on the life of a white Wall Street executive than they do a black guy like Brown. Therefore your response is total fail.
 
MildSteel said:
No you have not disproven anything because the point is that white Americans tend value to the life of a white Wall Street executive more than they value the life of a black guy from the Midwest. And if a black cop shot and killed an unarmed white Wall Street executive and there was no trial, despite eyewitness testimony that the executive posed no threat to the black cop, regardless of whether there were accounts to contradict that, there would be outrage from many whites who support the current grand jury decision.
Click to expand...

Once again you're relying on a broken strawman argument. Your WS set up doesn't reflect what happened in this situation and there is no way you can find to get your mythical WS exec to do the things Brown was doing.

You wouldn't have even heard about this if Brown had been white and/or the cop had been black. Only white on black matters to you despite the very real fact that most black folk actually murdered are murdered by other black folk.
 
clownboy said:
Once again you're relying on a broken strawman argument. Your WS set up doesn't reflect what happened in this situation and there is no way you can find to get your mythical WS exec to do the things Brown was doing.

You wouldn't have even heard about this if Brown had been white and/or the cop had been black. Only white on black matters to you despite the very real fact that most black folk actually murdered are murdered by other black folk.
Click to expand...

Unlike the accusations of another poster in other threads, this is indeed a strawman. That said it is not broken. You are missing the point. There is a difference in the value that whites place on the life of a white Wall Street executive and someone like Brown. As a result of that, they are more willing to believe the officers assertion, despite the existence of evidence that contradicts the officer's claim. Because of the existence of such evidence, there should have at least been a trial, although it is not clear if the evidence is strong enough to result in a conviction.
 
MildSteel said:
Unlike the accusations of another poster in other threads, this is indeed a strawman. That said it is not broken. You are missing the point. There is a difference in the value that whites place on the life of a white Wall Street executive and someone like Brown. As a result of that, they are more willing to believe the officers assertion, despite the existence of evidence that contradicts the officer's claim. Because of the existence of such evidence, there should have at least been a trial, although it is not clear if the evidence is strong enough to result in a conviction.
Click to expand...

Yes there's a difference, but it's NOT down to race, it's about behavior and achievement. We value the lives of those who handle our money over those who are strongarm robbers.

As to the rest of your busted argument, and it is busted by the facts, there is no evidence that contradicts Wilson's testimony and quite a bit that confirms it. Come on down from fantasy land and show us this contradictory evidence you're so sure of.
 
clownboy said:
Yes there's a difference, but it's NOT down to race, it's about behavior and achievement. We value the lives of those who handle our money over those who are strongarm robbers.
Click to expand...

What you fail to understand is that perceptions about what you have designated as behavior and achievement have a strong racial component to them. It is a fact. Even if it were a black Wall Street executive that was slain, whites would be more likely to believe that a black person would assault a police officer that they would a white one.

clownboy said:
As to the rest of your busted argument, and it is busted by the facts, there is no evidence that contradicts Wilson's testimony and quite a bit that confirms it. Come on down from fantasy land and show us this contradictory evidence you're so sure of.
Click to expand...

The fact that you either do not acknowledge or don't know about the evidence that contradicts the officer's narration of the events proves my point that whites place more value on the life of a white Wall Street executive than they do a black one. Here you do no even acknowledge that the evidence exists, despite the fact that it does.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom